8 ms·

The Cult of Vice

65 points by samclemens 11y ago

litmus 11y ago
the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes): http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history
- heydenberk 11y ago
  Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-racist-fox-news-guest-attackin/199617 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-rac... You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history. I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that they try.
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    I remain unconvinced that he's not simply a troll playing a very long con. When I read him as such, I have found him very enjoyable, but as of late, overexposure is really causing the joke to wear thin.
    - akilism 11y ago
      What does he have to do to convince you?
      - cholantesh 11y ago
        At this point, I'm not sure. If he didn't have a track record of making deliberately misleading statements and admitting that he enjoys goading people into reactions by saying things that are patently offensive, I might take him seriously.
    - heydenberk 11y ago
      I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's "trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.
      - drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
        you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.
        wk_end 11y ago
        No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.
        stinkytaco 11y ago
        >Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
        akilism 11y ago
        People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
        joshuapants 11y ago
        > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.
    - serve_yay 11y ago
      That's silly.
      - cholantesh 11y ago
        OK.
  - Torgo 11y ago
    >Vice arrived at its current incarnation by a circuitous route. It emerged in 1994 as the Voice of Montreal, a countercultural magazine funded by Canadian welfare money So, Gavin McInnes' fame, wealth and notoriety is all due to Canada's public funding of the arts!
  - benihana 11y ago
    This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You're not arguing any points he's made on their validity; you're trying to invalidate things he "spews" because you think his character isn't sufficient. Intellectual laziness. Do you think that someone who says inciting things can't say insightful things simply because they stir up the pot? Or do you only think he's not insightful because he says things you personally don't like? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - litmus 11y ago
    I don't think he's a homophobe. In order to call him that you'd have to cast a very wide net. As for the anti-feminism [1] or misogyny, some of the same points he makes in more provocative tones are made by the like of Caitlyn Flanagan in the pages of The Atlantic.[2] The article you link to seems kind of overkill at times. It links to his articles for evidence of racial slurs where it seems pretty obvious he's doing it intentionally since in one he mentions an uproar where Sarah Silverman called Chinese people Chinks ("People look really stupid shaking their fists at a clown"), however self-serving that may be. But I think it can be said that his arguments are often repeat ad-nauseam versions of this scene from Rescue Me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs [1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-nsfw/ http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-will-be-boys/304317/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
    - cllns 11y ago
      "[Caitlyn] Flanagan is a self-described anti-feminist" [1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
      - litmus 11y ago
        To be clear, I wasn't trying to claim McInnes or Flanagan weren't anti-feminists. In fact I introduced the term in my response because I thought it was a more accurate description than "misogynist". In American culture are all anti-feminists considered misogynists? It would be easier to discuss if there were common understanding of certain definitions. Similarly, if you are against marriage equality are you by definition a homophobe [1]? Not sure really why I was downvoted, as the link given in the parent post was about racism not homophobia (burden of proof etc). Also, I'm saying all this as someone who disagrees with many of McInnes's positions, go figure. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be&t=6m56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be...
  - eertami 11y ago
    How some people are so incapable of recognizing satire is beyond me.
copsarebastards 11y ago
> But editorial standards change when your aim is not to be an entertainment company, but a trusted source of news. This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience? > With expansion comes a sense of responsibility,” he told me recently in one of Vice’s glass-walled conference rooms. “As time goes on I don’t think that being silly, being stupid, is cool anymore. When you look at the planet, at the state that it’s in, it demands attention. It demands scrutiny. And it demands a certain level of seriousness.” Could it be that it's exactly the lack of seriousness of Vice's reporting up to this point that has made people trust them? Reality isn't always serious, and when it is, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to laugh at it, or to admit that it's strange. In short, this looks like yet another company getting big and then changing everything that made them successful. It's not necessarily going to hurt their bottom line, but it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience? High-quality, prestigious yellow journalism. Remember the Maine!
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    "Yellow journalism" means it's sensationalized or exaggerated, but I think most of Vice's stuff wasn't; they simply reported on sensational topics, and people assumed they were exaggerated because the topics are seemingly larger-than-life to an audience unfamiliar with them. Of course, they weren't perfect, but when they did sensationalize or exaggerate, I think it was a bit more harmless than most news sources. Everyone is doing it to sell ad space, but Vice tended to sensationalize stories that were weird rather than stories that created fear or outrage--their sensationalism was less politicized. EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about Vice a while back, not Vice now. The changes mentioned in the article are already apparent in some of what Vice is doing these days.
- freewizard 11y ago
  > it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers. it's also in general what drives us building new things/companies.
ambirex 11y ago
Perhaps this is now old, but everytime Vice is brought up all I can think of is this piece with David Carr from Page One (2011) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo
- icpmacdo 11y ago
  Here is a 2014 article from David Carr giving them a bit more credit http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-intact-vice-is-chasing-hard-news-.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-in...
  - ambirex 11y ago
    Absolutely they are evolving as a news org, and for the better. It is just hard to shake off the view I had of them.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  It has one of the best insults I've ever heard, hence its popularity. "Just cuz you put on a fucking safari helmet and look at some poop..." But to dismiss what they've done with this video being posted every time does everyone a disservice. But yeah, good for a laugh. Not to be overly high and mighty about it but I'd really prefer to do my funny pics/videos on reddit.
  - ambirex 11y ago
    I really wasn't trying to dismiss what the have been evolving into, rather to voice my own problems seeing past the Vice that was presented in Page One.
serve_yay 11y ago
Where Vice started and where it is now is certainly a sign of the times, I'll say that.
Apocryphon 11y ago
'Vice has described its salaries as “competitive with comparable emerging media companies,” but many employees seem to be here for the work and the culture, not the money. “There’s a sense that you’re lucky to be there,” said one former employee. “What you don’t get paid for in cash is made up in the cool factor, and maybe getting into their parties.” “It’s like a cult,” said another ex-employee.' When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  This sounds vaguely like when I interviewed for Dark Horse Comics' IT team, without the parties.
- seiji 11y ago
  working for a corporate cult. Much like the modern (wrong) meme of "every company should try to be an abusive monopoly," every company should also try to be a cult unto themselves. You want your employees willing to die for the chance at helping you become a billionaire while they get much much much less. They should wake up every morning wondering how they can win your approval, even if it requires sacrificing their own wellbeing. A good SV-viewpoint sociopathic writeup of why your company should be a cult is (pdf) http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.pdf http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.p...
- fezz 11y ago
  This cool factor tradeoff works for a little while early on but once it ceases to be the inherently cool, it turns into large and manufactured cool. Simultaneously, that's when it also becomes a toxic work environment.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  > When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult. Or a startup
stefs 11y ago
i occasionally read local vice articles (not u.s. - they obviously employ writers in lots of countries) and most of them are unbearable trash. then, suddenly, a gem appears. the vice munchies take on weightlifter morghan kings diet is one of the better introduction to weightlifting in general. (in case anyone's interested: http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-weightlifter-morghan-king http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-we... )
pessimizer 11y ago
Isn't Vice's show on HBO just Unreported World with no women, anorexic men, and sarcasm? The last season even repeated the exact same story with the same correspondent and the same title for the Egyptian Tomb Raiders segment ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI ).
tezka 11y ago
Relevant older, harsher piece http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-rape-joke http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-r...
- hitekker 11y ago
  I'm sure the author in your link had some good points, but they may have been overshadowed by all of the article's vitriol.

65 points by samclemens 11y ago

the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes): http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history

heydenberk 11y ago
Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-racist-fox-news-guest-attackin/199617 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-rac... You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history. I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that they try.
- cholantesh 11y ago
  I remain unconvinced that he's not simply a troll playing a very long con. When I read him as such, I have found him very enjoyable, but as of late, overexposure is really causing the joke to wear thin.
  - akilism 11y ago
    What does he have to do to convince you?
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      At this point, I'm not sure. If he didn't have a track record of making deliberately misleading statements and admitting that he enjoys goading people into reactions by saying things that are patently offensive, I might take him seriously.
  - heydenberk 11y ago
    I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's "trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.
    - drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
      you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.
      - wk_end 11y ago
        No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.
        stinkytaco 11y ago
        >Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
        akilism 11y ago
        People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
        joshuapants 11y ago
        > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.
  - serve_yay 11y ago
    That's silly.
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      OK.
- Torgo 11y ago
  >Vice arrived at its current incarnation by a circuitous route. It emerged in 1994 as the Voice of Montreal, a countercultural magazine funded by Canadian welfare money So, Gavin McInnes' fame, wealth and notoriety is all due to Canada's public funding of the arts!
- benihana 11y ago
  This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You're not arguing any points he's made on their validity; you're trying to invalidate things he "spews" because you think his character isn't sufficient. Intellectual laziness. Do you think that someone who says inciting things can't say insightful things simply because they stir up the pot? Or do you only think he's not insightful because he says things you personally don't like? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- litmus 11y ago
  I don't think he's a homophobe. In order to call him that you'd have to cast a very wide net. As for the anti-feminism [1] or misogyny, some of the same points he makes in more provocative tones are made by the like of Caitlyn Flanagan in the pages of The Atlantic.[2] The article you link to seems kind of overkill at times. It links to his articles for evidence of racial slurs where it seems pretty obvious he's doing it intentionally since in one he mentions an uproar where Sarah Silverman called Chinese people Chinks ("People look really stupid shaking their fists at a clown"), however self-serving that may be. But I think it can be said that his arguments are often repeat ad-nauseam versions of this scene from Rescue Me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs [1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-nsfw/ http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-will-be-boys/304317/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
  - cllns 11y ago
    "[Caitlyn] Flanagan is a self-described anti-feminist" [1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
    - litmus 11y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't trying to claim McInnes or Flanagan weren't anti-feminists. In fact I introduced the term in my response because I thought it was a more accurate description than "misogynist". In American culture are all anti-feminists considered misogynists? It would be easier to discuss if there were common understanding of certain definitions. Similarly, if you are against marriage equality are you by definition a homophobe [1]? Not sure really why I was downvoted, as the link given in the parent post was about racism not homophobia (burden of proof etc). Also, I'm saying all this as someone who disagrees with many of McInnes's positions, go figure. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be&t=6m56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be...
- eertami 11y ago
  How some people are so incapable of recognizing satire is beyond me.

copsarebastards 11y ago

> But editorial standards change when your aim is not to be an entertainment company, but a trusted source of news. This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience? > With expansion comes a sense of responsibility,” he told me recently in one of Vice’s glass-walled conference rooms. “As time goes on I don’t think that being silly, being stupid, is cool anymore. When you look at the planet, at the state that it’s in, it demands attention. It demands scrutiny. And it demands a certain level of seriousness.” Could it be that it's exactly the lack of seriousness of Vice's reporting up to this point that has made people trust them? Reality isn't always serious, and when it is, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to laugh at it, or to admit that it's strange. In short, this looks like yet another company getting big and then changing everything that made them successful. It's not necessarily going to hurt their bottom line, but it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
> This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience? High-quality, prestigious yellow journalism. Remember the Maine!
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  "Yellow journalism" means it's sensationalized or exaggerated, but I think most of Vice's stuff wasn't; they simply reported on sensational topics, and people assumed they were exaggerated because the topics are seemingly larger-than-life to an audience unfamiliar with them. Of course, they weren't perfect, but when they did sensationalize or exaggerate, I think it was a bit more harmless than most news sources. Everyone is doing it to sell ad space, but Vice tended to sensationalize stories that were weird rather than stories that created fear or outrage--their sensationalism was less politicized. EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about Vice a while back, not Vice now. The changes mentioned in the article are already apparent in some of what Vice is doing these days.
freewizard 11y ago
> it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers. it's also in general what drives us building new things/companies.

ambirex 11y ago

Perhaps this is now old, but everytime Vice is brought up all I can think of is this piece with David Carr from Page One (2011) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo

icpmacdo 11y ago
Here is a 2014 article from David Carr giving them a bit more credit http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-intact-vice-is-chasing-hard-news-.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-in...
- ambirex 11y ago
  Absolutely they are evolving as a news org, and for the better. It is just hard to shake off the view I had of them.
thieving_magpie 11y ago
It has one of the best insults I've ever heard, hence its popularity. "Just cuz you put on a fucking safari helmet and look at some poop..." But to dismiss what they've done with this video being posted every time does everyone a disservice. But yeah, good for a laugh. Not to be overly high and mighty about it but I'd really prefer to do my funny pics/videos on reddit.
- ambirex 11y ago
  I really wasn't trying to dismiss what the have been evolving into, rather to voice my own problems seeing past the Vice that was presented in Page One.

serve_yay 11y ago

Where Vice started and where it is now is certainly a sign of the times, I'll say that.

Apocryphon 11y ago

'Vice has described its salaries as “competitive with comparable emerging media companies,” but many employees seem to be here for the work and the culture, not the money. “There’s a sense that you’re lucky to be there,” said one former employee. “What you don’t get paid for in cash is made up in the cool factor, and maybe getting into their parties.” “It’s like a cult,” said another ex-employee.' When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult.

selimthegrim 11y ago
This sounds vaguely like when I interviewed for Dark Horse Comics' IT team, without the parties.
seiji 11y ago
working for a corporate cult. Much like the modern (wrong) meme of "every company should try to be an abusive monopoly," every company should also try to be a cult unto themselves. You want your employees willing to die for the chance at helping you become a billionaire while they get much much much less. They should wake up every morning wondering how they can win your approval, even if it requires sacrificing their own wellbeing. A good SV-viewpoint sociopathic writeup of why your company should be a cult is (pdf) http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.pdf http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.p...
fezz 11y ago
This cool factor tradeoff works for a little while early on but once it ceases to be the inherently cool, it turns into large and manufactured cool. Simultaneously, that's when it also becomes a toxic work environment.
NeutronBoy 11y ago
> When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult. Or a startup

stefs 11y ago

i occasionally read local vice articles (not u.s. - they obviously employ writers in lots of countries) and most of them are unbearable trash. then, suddenly, a gem appears. the vice munchies take on weightlifter morghan kings diet is one of the better introduction to weightlifting in general. (in case anyone's interested: http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-weightlifter-morghan-king http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-we... )

pessimizer 11y ago

Isn't Vice's show on HBO just Unreported World with no women, anorexic men, and sarcasm? The last season even repeated the exact same story with the same correspondent and the same title for the Egyptian Tomb Raiders segment ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI ).

tezka 11y ago

Relevant older, harsher piece http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-rape-joke http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-r...

hitekker 11y ago
I'm sure the author in your link had some good points, but they may have been overshadowed by all of the article's vitriol.